The Double Effect of “Double Standards”

The summer may have brought a pause to parliamentary sessions, university lectures, and the editorial of Verfassungsblog, but not to international law. In early September, the Shanghai Summit made the continuing erosion of the so-called liberal international legal order and the looming risk of its fragmentation evident. The leaders of the assembled Asian states (mostly autocracies) once again decried the West’s (or North’s) “double standards” (Tianjin Declaration of 1 September 2025). The accusation of double standards is not new, but in today’s period of upheaval in the world order, it has acquired an entirely new dynamism and urgency. It focuses ... continue reading

From Sidelines to Center Stage

The trilogy of climate advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice marks a watershed moment not only for climate litigation but also for understanding the evolving role of Conferences of the Parties (COPs) in international law. This post analyses the courts' engagement with COPs and argues that it represents another step in clarifying their institutional role in global governance – one that elevates these treaty bodies from largely diplomatic forums to authoritative interpreters and potentially norm-creators within treaty regimes.

International Law’s Administrative Law Turn and the Paris Agreement

In the recent Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations in respect of Climate Change, various remarks by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) lean into an increasingly “administrative” law turn in international law. In this blog post, we investigate this phenomenon by looking at the ways in which States’ preparation, communication, and maintenance of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement are coming to be characterised by requirements or standards with a domestic administrative law tone.

Isn’t it Ironic?

Since we do believe in the power of sharing personal experiences and in solidarity, we decided to share ours through this symposium as they highlight the different shapes and forms that silencing attempts and chilling effects can take, as well as the salience of solidarity in academia. They further unearth the hidden costs associated with pursuing publication projects that resist topical normalization and try instead to re-open space for important – yet often uncomfortable – conversations in a highly polarized political environment.

The Feasibility of Security Guarantees for Ukraine

The question of possible security guarantees is at the heart of current efforts to end the war against Ukraine. White House special envoy Steve Witkoff stated on 17 August 2025 that “the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,” which would serve as a trade-off for Russia’s insistence that Ukraine should not be able to join NATO. This has brought the term “Article 5-like protection” into focus. The feasibility of such a guarantee appears impossible given legal and practical obstacles. Russia is demanding untenable concessions from Ukraine in exchange for its consent. The prospect of a credible deterrent is also missing, which is why the entire process appears to be the Russians playing for time.

The School Bell That Rings for War

On 1 September, known in Russia as Knowledge Day, thousands of schoolchildren were once again welcomed back with the ringing of the symbolic first bell, marking the beginning of new school year. However, this school bell does not toll for knowledge or peace. Instead, it symbolizes how Russia has transformed schools into factories for transmitting state-sponsored propaganda to younger generations. In this blog, I explain how Russia is strategically weaponizing the educational system to raise a militarized generation of subjects that accepts and embraces the normalcy of war. It seeks to achieve this goal, inter alia, through military training and involvement of children in the production of combat equipment; obligating teachers to teach state-mandated falsification of history; and forcing cultural assimilation of Ukrainians living in occupied territories.  

From One ICJ to Another

In early August, Judge Julia Sebutinde of the International Court of Justice was reported as saying that “The Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel”, and that the “whole world was against Israel, including my country.” These statements appear to contradict the requirement that Judges remain impartial. Following these remarks, a non-governmental organization called the International Commission of Jurists sent a communication to the President of the Court to urge him to investigate Judge Sebutinde’s remarks. While this move was met with general acclaim on social media, it could likewise be perceived as attempting to put external pressure on the Court to reach a certain decision.

Hanan Ashrawi

Few advocates of Palestinian liberation have become as familiar a name as Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. A principled activist and gifted speaker with a formidable academic background, she rose to international prominence during the First Intifada in 1988. Later, with the start of the Madrid Conference in 1991, she caught the world’s attention as the official representative of the Palestinian delegation.

Can Africa Still Drill?

While the ICJ found that any State suffering from climate change can bring charges against others for their contribution to climate change, the opinion does not distinguish between the obligations of developed and developing States (except where treaty law already imposes different obligations).  African States and the African Union have continued to support fossil fuel development on the continent. In light of this advisory opinion, what obligations are imposed on developing States, like African States, to protect the climate, particularly regarding the further development of fossil fuel industries? 

Closing the Silences

At COP 30 in Belém, ministers will wrangle over how “sufficient” the new climate-finance goal must be, and whether “phase-down” of coal is a slogan or a legal trigger. In Brussels, the 2040 climate target faces the same test, while in Geneva, the WTO’s fossil-subsidy reform stalls over which tax breaks to cut. Read through a strict consent-only lens, and these are political choices. Read through the ICJ’s frame – science, equity, no-harm, precaution – they become legal ones: finance must be capable of delivering 1.5°C and repairing loss and damage, coal and subsidy policies must be plausibly 1.5°C-compatible, and the burden falls on governments to prove it.